Karnataka High Court Reconstitutes SIT for KPSC Recruitment Scam, Appoints R Hitendra as Chief

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has reconstituted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating two alleged Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) recruitment scams, appointing senior IPS officer R Hitendra as chief in place of Alok Kumar, in a development that follows the October 13 order of the supreme High Court of India upholding the SIT while refusing a de novo probe. The Court also named Additional Director General of Police Soumendu Mukherjee as the second senior officer, retained three existing members, and barred officers linked to the earlier Criminal Investigation Department (CID) inquiry from the new team.

The reconstitution was ordered to ensure an independent and credible investigation into the alleged irregularities in KPSC recruitment. The Court said the new leadership would take charge of the probe and carry it forward from the stage already reached. The three continuing members — Anup Shetty, Kushal Chouksey and Kshama Mishra — will remain on the team, giving continuity to the day-to-day work even as the two senior posts change hands.

Under the revised structure, Hitendra will head the SIT and Mukherjee will function as the second senior officer. Hitendra replaces Alok Kumar, while Mukherjee replaces Dr Divya Gopinath. The Court made it clear that the change at the top did not affect the tenure of the other three officers, who will continue to handle the records, questioning, verification of documents and coordination with other agencies.

A central part of the order is the direction that officers associated with the earlier CID investigation should not be included in the reconstituted SIT. The Court held that keeping the new team free from officers who had handled the prior inquiry was necessary to protect the fairness of the further probe. The exclusion applies to association with the earlier CID probe and is meant to remove any fear of bias or repetition of earlier lapses.

New Chief To Lead Probe

The change in leadership comes after objections raised by the state government to the appointment of Alok Kumar without consultation with the state police chief and the government. The government had challenged the appointment of the SIT chief before the Supreme Court. It contended that the selection of the head of such a team should have involved the state police leadership and the government, particularly when serving police officers are drawn into an investigation ordered by the court.

The Supreme Court decided that challenge on October 13. It upheld the constitution of the SIT ordered by the High Court but set aside the direction for a de novo investigation. It ruled that the team should continue the investigation from where the previous agency had left off, rather than start the probe afresh. That distinction now shapes the entire work of the reconstituted team headed by Hitendra.

For lawyers and litigants who followed the Supreme Court phase, the case status during that period was shown in the usual cause list and on the Supreme Court of India display board, while some online search records rendered the name with a typographical error as Supreme Court 0f India. The substance of the October 13 ruling, as recorded in the court proceedings, was that the SIT would remain but its method would be continuation and further investigation, not a complete restart.

The difference between a de novo probe and a continued investigation carries direct legal consequences. A de novo probe would have required the SIT to disregard earlier steps and begin again, including re-recording of statements and re-collection of material. A continued investigation allows the SIT to use the case diaries, seizures, statements and forensic material already gathered, verify them, fill gaps, examine new leads and take the matter to its logical end without duplicating work already done.

That point is of immediate relevance to the cases in hand, including the recruitment for 400 veterinary officer posts in which 29 of 329 selected candidates allegedly paid bribes. The allegation, as placed before the courts, is that money changed hands for selection to posts that carry public duties in animal husbandry and rural services. The SIT will now have to test the money trail, the role of middlemen, the involvement of officials and the validity of selections already made.

The High Court is dealing with two alleged KPSC recruitment scams. The material available in the orders made public so far sets out details of the veterinary officers recruitment, while full details of the second recruitment under scan have not been elaborated in the reconstitution order. Both matters, however, will fall within the charge of the reconstituted SIT, which is expected to examine each recruitment separately on its own record.

After supreme High Court of India order

The High Court’s present order aligns the SIT’s mandate with the Supreme Court’s directive for further investigation rather than a fresh probe. The Court said the investigation must aim at justice and restoration of institutional integrity in the recruitment process. KPSC conducts recruitment to gazetted and non-gazetted posts and its selections affect the careers of thousands of aspirants across the state, which is why the courts have stressed independence and credibility in the inquiry.

In practice, continuation means the SIT will first take custody of the files built up by the CID and any other agency that handled the matter earlier. It will study the first information reports, the list of witnesses examined, the documents seized from the Commission, the answer scripts and evaluation records where relevant, bank entries and call records collected so far, and the reasons recorded for arrests or for not arresting any person. It can then decide which lines need further verification.

The SIT is also expected to work in parallel with the Enforcement Directorate, with cooperative investigation between the two agencies. The police investigation focuses on criminal liability for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and offences under prevention of corruption law where applicable, while the Enforcement Directorate examines the financial trail under its own statute. Cooperation avoids duplication in summoning witnesses and seeking bank details, and allows sharing of material as permitted by law.

The exclusion of CID-associated officers will require administrative steps. The state police establishment will have to ensure that no officer who was part of the earlier CID inquiry is posted to assist the SIT in any capacity, including on deputation, as part of a support unit or for technical assistance. The SIT chief is expected to report to the High Court if any difficulty arises in obtaining staff, records or forensic support.

The state government’s consultation objection also points to a larger question of how court-ordered SITs are staffed. When the High Court names serving IPS officers to lead a probe, the government must relieve them from present postings, provide office, vehicles, ministerial staff and funds, and issue formal posting orders. The Supreme Court’s decision to retain the SIT while changing its scope leaves those administrative duties with the government, even as operational control on investigation remains with the SIT chief under the supervision of the High Court.

For the candidates, the continuation model brings both relief and uncertainty. Those among the 329 selected veterinary officers who were selected on merit have an interest in early clearance of their names and confirmation of their appointments. Those facing allegations of payment of bribes face further questioning, possible arrest and possible proceedings for cancellation of selection as per service rules. The SIT’s findings will not by themselves cancel appointments, as competent authorities and courts must pass separate orders, but they will form the basis for such action.